Seven held over alleged plot to commit another attack and man held over drone incident near Israeli embassy
Seven more people have been arrested after a series of arson attacks on Jewish sites in London.
The Metropolitan police said the suspects were arrested in the past 48 hours over an alleged conspiracy to commit a further arson attack, although the specific target is not yet known.
Continue reading...Knowing the difference between hunger and appetite, and understanding the sensory cues behind them, can help us make better decisions about what we eat
Imagine you’re in a meeting room when someone brings out the biscuits – a packet of Jammie Dodgers, perhaps, or a nice little plate of custard creams. Maybe you want one and maybe you don’t, but the chances are the people around you are all responding differently: someone will grab a couple straight away, someone else will eat one without seeming to notice, another will barely be aware the biscuits exist, and someone will spend the whole meeting wanting one but not taking it. Our appetites and responses to food vary wildly – but what’s going on behind the scenes to govern them? And has modern food somehow hijacked the process? Grab a biscuit (or don’t) and settle in.
“First, it’s important to distinguish between hunger and appetite,” says Giles Yeo, a professor of molecular neuroendocrinology at the University of Cambridge and the author of Why Calories Don’t Count. “Hunger is a feeling – it’s what happens in the run-up to you deciding you need to eat something. Appetite is everything that surrounds why we eat – including hunger, fullness and reward, or how you actually feel when you eat. Those three sensations all use completely different parts of the brain, but they all work together.”
Continue reading...Rammed with every music-movie cliche, an almost mute supporting cast and a Michael who only produces endless smiley blandness, this is a frustratingly shallow film
Antoine Fuqua’s demi-biopic of Michael Jackson gives you the chimp, the llama, the giraffe … but not the elephant in the living room. It’s like a 127-minute trailer montage assembling every music-movie cliche you can think of: the producers’ astonishment in the recording studio, the tour bus, the billboard chart ascent, the meeting with the uncool corporate execs in their offices.
The film skates through Jackson’s life from the early days of the Jackson Five, terrorised by belt-wielding dad Joe, to his emergence as a stunningly original, globally adored solo act, culminating in the colossal Wembley Stadium concert in 1988, at which stage he was 30-years-old. And there we leave it, with the baffling surtitle flashed up on screen before the end credits roll: “The story continues”. It certainly does. Does this mean a second, darker movie is in the works? Maybe. Producer Graham King and the Jackson family estate are reportedly considering a “Michael 2”; if this happens, they will have to find a very different film-making style, something other than this bland, slick, corporate hagiography. And there is certainly no clear commitment to anything. All concerned might well think it’s best to exit here, and avoid the controversy, like the stage show MJ: The Musical.
Continue reading...Richard Gadd’s at it again. His unforgiving new drama tackles the damage men do to each other head on, by pulling out his insides and smearing them everywhere. Every man should watch this queasy masterpiece
We have known for some time, I think, that men are not OK. Richard Gadd’s new drama, conceived before his astounding, semi-autobiographical creation Baby Reindeer sent his reputation stratospheric, and now broadcast in the slipstream of that success, is a fiercely intelligent, unforgiving, harrowing attempt to show us how and why.
Half Man begins in the present, with two men circling each other in a dark barn. One, Niall (Jamie Bell), is in full Scottish wedding fig. The other, Ruben (Gadd), is stripped to the waist and has his hands wrapped like a sparring boxer. The fight that is surely about to come does not seem a fair one.
Continue reading...The Guardian’s picture editors select photographs from around the world
Continue reading...
For a small price, Malus.sh will use AI to ingest any piece of software you give and spit out a new version of it that “liberates” it from any existing copyright licenses. The result is a new piece of software that serves the same function, but doesn’t have to honor, for example, the kind of copyright licenses that ensure open source software remains free to use and modify, a process which could upend the already fragile open source ecosystem.
The site is an elaborate bit of satire designed to bring attention to a very real problem in open source, but it also does exactly what it advertises and is a real LLC that is making money by using AI to produce “clean room” clones of existing software.
“It works,” Mike Nolan, one of the two people behind Malus, who researches the political economy of open source software and currently works for the United Nations, told me. “The Stripe charge will provide you the thing, and it was important for us to do that, because we felt that if it was just satire, it would end up like every other piece of research I've done on open source, which ends up being largely dismissed by open source tech workers who felt that they were too special and too unique and too intelligent to ever be the ones on the bad side of the layoffs or the economics of the situation.”
Malus’s legal strategy for bypassing copyright is based on a historically pivotal moment for software and copyright law dating back to 1982. Back then, IBM dominated home computing, and competitors like Columbia Data Products wanted to sell products that were compatible with software that IBM customers were already using. Reverse engineering IBM’s computer would have infringed on the company’s copyright, so Columbia Data Products came up with what we now know as a “clean room” design.
It tasked one team with examining IBM’s BIOS and creating specifications for what a clone of that system would require. A different “clean” team, one that was never exposed to IBM’s code, then created BIOS that met those specifications from scratch. The result was a system that was compatible with IBM’s ecosystem but didn’t violate its copyright because it did not copy IBM’s technical process and counted as original work.
This clean room method, which has been validated by case law and dramatized in the first season of Halt and Catch Fire, made computing more open and competitive than it would have been otherwise. But it has taken on new meaning in the age of generative AI. It is now easier than ever to ask AI tools to produce software that is identical in function to existing open source projects, and that, some would argue, are built from scratch and are therefore original work that can bypass existing copyright licenses. Others would say that software produced by large language models is inherently derivative, because like any LLM output, it is trained on the collective output of humans scraped from the internet, including specific open source projects.
Malus (pronounced malice), uses AI to do the same thing.
“Finally, liberation from open source license obligations,” Malus’s site says. “Our proprietary AI robots independently recreate any open source project from scratch. The result? Legally distinct code with corporate-friendly licensing. No attribution. No copyleft. No problems.” Copyleft is a type of copyright license that ensures reproductions or applications of the software keep it free to share and modify.
Malus’s pitch is naked contempt for the open source community, which believes in developing software collaboratively and providing it for free to everyone. Normally, copyright licenses for open source projects only ask that anyone who uses the work give credit to maintainers and that any derivative works will continue to use the same permissive license, which hopefully grows the community of people who contribute back into the project and keep it going.
“Some licenses require you to contribute improvements back. Your shareholders didn't invest in your company so you could help strangers,” Malus’s site says. “Is your legal team frustrated with the attribution clause? Tired of putting ‘Portions of this software…’ in your documentation? Those maintainers worked for free—why should they get credit?”
The site gained some incredulous attention when it was posted to Hacker News recently,, but it didn’t take people long to realize that it was an elaborate bit of satire, even if the tool can still replicate open source projects as advertised.
Malus was born out of a talk that open source developers Dylan Ayrey and Michael Nolan gave at the open source conference FOSDEM 2026. The AI slop heavy presentation is a whirlwind history of copyright and software, how the two have always had an uneasy but necessary relationship, and how that relationship is fundamentally changed now that AI tools can produce clean room designs at a click of button.
“Even if the courts ruled that maybe this is legal, and maybe there aren't legal restrictions to doing this, is it ethical?” Ayrey asked.
“The question we should be asking is, can we get rich off of this?” Nolan said.
And so Malus was born.
Malus is satire, but it will actually take your money and do what it advertises. It is modeled after the IBM case and uses one AI agent to write the specifications and a different agent to produce the code, creating that “clean room” effect. Malus will also do performance testing and scan for common vulnerabilities to make sure the output is functional.
Nolan didn’t tell me exactly how much money the company is making but said it is a real LLC with a bank account and is profitable, with “probably hundreds” of dollars at this point. The service charges $0.01 for each KB of data across the project's various dependencies.
What Malus is satirizing is also really happening. For example, in March Ars Technica and The Register covered an incident around a widely used Python library called chardet. Originally it was released under the LGPL license; then a version was rereleased under the more permissive MIT license. Dan Blanchard, who used Claude to produce the MIT-licensed version of chardet, argued that it was a complete rewrite of chardet, and not derivative, because only a small percent of the code looked and functioned similarly. Mark Pilgrim, who originally released chardet, disagreed and complained about Blanchard using this method to shed the more restrictive LGPL license.
“This concern is legitimate. AI has made clean-room style reimplementation dramatically cheaper,” Blanchard wrote in response to Pilgrim. “What used to require months of work by expensive engineering teams can now, as Armin Ronacher put it, be done trivially.”
Blanchard also conceded that Claude, which like all LLMs, was trained on vast amounts of data scraped indiscriminately from the internet and was exposed to the original chardet in its training, but maintains his version is not derivative.
“I have seen Malus.sh, and like many people, I wasn’t sure it was satire at first, because I’m sure someone will probably make that for real eventually,” Blanchard told me in an email. “I think the reality of the situation is that traditional software licenses (open source and commercial) weren’t the real barrier against these sorts of rewrites in the past (see WINE, Linux, and IBM PC BIOSes long ago), and the main obstacles were time and money. A rewrite that would’ve taken a team of people months or years can be done in days with AI. As a professional software engineer, I don’t love that much of the business model around selling software is in danger, but I don’t think there’s any putting the genie back in the bottle at this point.”
After the backlash, Blanchard changed the license on his version of chardet from MIT to the 0BSD license, which he told me “was a change that satisfied many in the community's concerns about AI-generated code not even being copyrightable in the first place.” The 0BSD license is very permissive and allows anyone to “use, copy, modify, and/or distribute this software for any purpose with or without fee.”
“Much of our law was designed with human scale inefficiencies in mind,” Meredith Rose, a senior policy counsel with Public Knowledge who focuses on copyright, DMCA, and intellectual property reform, told me. “Clean rooms worked because courts kind of looked at the whole clean room methodology and were like, ‘there's a lot of labor that goes into this.’ That’s part of the calculus. You had a couple human beings recreating this very big source package essentially from nothing but high level specs. The idea of collapsing that into something where you can press a button and get an entire package recreated is kind of wild, even though it is technically correct under the law as far as I can tell.”
Others in the open source community say that regardless of the legal implications of AI-generated clean room versions of existing software, the reality and impact of the practice is here, and not good for the open source community.
“Whether or not Malus is satire, the concept it describes is already happening in practice. The
legal theory that an AI can ‘clean room’ reimplement things was arguably made inevitable by the approach companies like OpenAI and Anthropic have taken to copyright: treat the entire internet as training data, then claim the output is a new, unencumbered work,” Mike McQuaid, developer of the popular open source package manager Homebrew, told me. “Even if you accept the legal argument, the ethics fucking suck. Open source isn't just source code you download once. It's an ongoing relationship: security patches, bug fixes, adaptation to new platforms, accumulated expertise from years of triage and review. A ‘clean room’ reimplementation fucks all of that. You get a snapshot with none of the maintenance. It’s basically just a fork where nobody knows how the code works, nobody is watching for CVEs, and nobody knows what to do when it breaks. That's not liberation, it's just technical debt.”
Nolan told me that he made Malus to make developers feel this danger.
“I've been publishing research on these [open source] communities for over a decade now, and consistently, what I hear over and over again is that open source has won because 80 or 90 percent of all software applications rely upon us, but what they're relying upon is the wholesale exploitation of massive communities of workers who convince themselves that they're winning because Google uses them, and what they end up doing instead is pretending that because their software is licensed under a certain license, that that means they’re ethical,” Nolan said. “It doesn’t matter if they’re in the supply chain of weapons that are committing war crimes. It doesn’t matter that their friends suddenly get the rug pulled out from under them when a CTO decides to change strategy and no longer wants to support that library anymore [...] They just keep on saying everything’s okay as the tech sector essentially will collapse down upon them, and they keep saying they're winning, even when they're not. And so my hope, with Malus, was to make people think critically about their position.”
Review Ever since AMD's cache-stacked Ryzen 7 5800X3D closed the gap with Intel in gaming, folks have wondered: if one V-Cache chiplet is good, surely two must be better. With the launch of the Ryzen 9 9950X3D2 Dual Edition (DE), we finally have our answer.…
/s3/static.nrc.nl/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/17165624/210426CUL_2033037577_Michael03.jpg)
/s3/static.nrc.nl/wp-content/uploads/2026/04/16145922/210426CUL_2033036880_1.jpg)
:format(jpeg):fill(f8f8f8,true)/s3/static.nrc.nl/taxonomy/1c920e9-Roodnat%252C%2520Joyce%25202023%2520MD%252017%25201280%2520WEB.png)
:format(jpeg):fill(f8f8f8,true)/s3/static.nrc.nl/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/fritshome.png)
Een voorlopig eind aan het debiele verhaal van het debiele stel Peter Schröder (63, wonend te Heel) en Nancy Duijn (57, wonend te Herkenbosch). De twee hadden een jaar lang een SM-relatie waarin Peter met de zweep sloeg en Nancy onderdanig was, toen besloten ze hun slaapkamerbeleving over een andere boeg te gooien. Nancy liet zich inhuren als oppas door ouders van zeer jonge kinderen (allen tussen 1 en 6 jaar oud), ging die kinderen tientallen keren misbruiken en stuurde beelden naar Peter of liet hem live meekijken door te videobellen. Nancy, die ook haar eigen puberdochter drogeerde om naaktbeelden van haar te maken, zei over de slachtoffertjes: "Die van 1 jaar zijn het makkelijkst. Gewoon luier uit en aan de gang". De zieke praktijken kwamen aan het licht toen twee ouders het misbruik terugzagen op hun nanny-cam. Afijn deze gore lijers zijn dus in hoger beroep veroordeeld voor, houd u vast, ACHT jaar cel plus tbs (Peter, die in 2015 al eens werd gepakt met kinderporno) en VEERTIEN jaar cel zonder tbs (Nancy). Tering jantje.
“The Extrapolated Futures Archive is a reverse-lookup for speculative fiction. Describe a situation you are facing, and find the SF stories that already worked through the implications.”
DEN HAAG (ANP) - VVD-fractievoorzitter in de Tweede Kamer Ruben Brekelmans is "verbijsterd" over het stemgedrag van met name D66 in de senaat over de strenge asielwetten. De partij zocht volgens hem naar redenen om tegen te stemmen. "Ik heb daar geen woorden voor."
DEN HAAG (ANP) - Voormalig PVV-parlementariër Gidi Markuszower is woedend op zijn oude partij omdat die met haar stemgedrag in de Eerste Kamer de strenge asielwetten van de eigen ex-minister Marjolein Faber heeft laten stranden. Hij spreekt van "politiek theater" en noemt de gang van zaken "schandalig".
De PVV stemde in de senaat tegen een reparatiewet die nodig was om Fabers asielnoodmaatregelenwet aan een meerderheid te helpen. In de Tweede Kamer stemde de partij van Geert Wilders nog voor precies datzelfde voorstel, brengt Markuszower in herinnering.
Dat bij de PVV zulke "domme dingen" gebeuren, wijt Markuszower aan zijn eigen vertrek bij de partij. "Ik ben er niet om dit soort krankzinnigheid tegen te houden." Markuszower stapte eerder dit jaar met zes anderen uit de PVV-fractie en kondigde onlangs aan een eigen partij te beginnen.
De asielwetten waren "niet de heilige graal", erkent ook Markuszower. "Maar het was wel iets. Iedereen begrijpt dat dit systeem niet langer vol te houden is."
DEN HAAG (ANP) - Mensen met een ernstige psychische aandoening krijgen in veel gevallen niet de zorg en ondersteuning die ze nodig hebben, terwijl het huidige systeem wel ruimte biedt om die hulp te verbeteren. Dat concludeert de Onderzoeksraad voor Veiligheid (OVV) in een onderzoek naar onder meer vernieuwende initiatieven in de sector. In de praktijk lopen initiatiefnemers volgens de raad nog vaak tegen obstakels aan.
Naar schatting kampen ongeveer 250.000 mensen in Nederland met een ernstige psychische aandoening. Van hen is ruim 40 procent ook licht verstandelijk beperkt of zwakbegaafd. Verder kampt een groot deel van de groep met een verslaving en hebben ze veelal ook problemen met bijvoorbeeld hun fysieke gezondheid, wonen en financiën. Dat kan leiden tot veiligheidsrisico's voor hen en hun omgeving, aldus de OVV. Een kwart van de mensen met een ernstige psychische aandoening ontvangt geen zorg.
"Veel mensen maken zich zorgen over de veiligheid van en rondom mensen met een ernstige psychische aandoening, denk aan familieleden, burgemeesters, mensen uit de zorgsector en burgers", zegt OVV-lid Scott Douglas. "We hebben gekeken naar welke passende zorg en ondersteuning er binnen het huidige stelsel mogelijk zijn, ondanks alle barrières die daarbij aan de orde zijn. Dat vat ik graag samen onder de term koppig optimisme. Dus aankloppen op een deur van iemand die zorg mijdt, en dat blijven doen. Ook al duurt het misschien een jaar of zelfs langer voordat je in gesprek komt."
'Koppig optimisme'
Volgens Douglas moeten de organisaties die betrokken zijn bij mensen met een ernstige psychische aandoening eenzelfde "koppig optimisme" tonen. Daardoor kunnen ze meer ruimte creëren voor nieuwe werkwijzen en de mensen met de aandoening vroegtijdig helpen op een manier die goed aansluit bij hun behoeften en leefwereld.
De OVV komt in het rapport met tien aanbevelingen hiertoe. Zo zouden organisaties bij wie meldingen over mensen met een ernstige psychische aandoening als eerste binnenkomen, zoals de politie, woningbouwcorporaties en huisartsen, direct moeten beschikken over ggz-expertise. Een andere aanbeveling is dat in alle gemeenten de uitvoering van de zogeheten bemoeizorg een structurele plek krijgt. Daarvan is sprake als hulpverleners volhardend contact houden met mensen die hulp nodig hebben, maar die hulp niet vragen of accepteren.
Eindeloos swipen door TikTok, Instagram Reels of YouTube Shorts lijkt onschuldig tijdverdrijf, maar kan ongemerkt je humeur ondermijnen. Wie te veel korte video’s kijkt, belandt volgens een nieuwe studie in een psychologische kettingreactie: meer eenzaamheid, meer angst en uiteindelijk minder tevredenheid met het leven.
De Turkse onderzoekers Tuğba Türk Kurtça en Muhammet Can Doğru wilden precies begrijpen hoe dat mechanisme werkt. Korte video-platforms serveren een eindeloze stroom gepersonaliseerde clips, gestuurd door algoritmes die inspelen op snelle beloningen. Dat maakt stoppen lastig en kan leiden tot wat de onderzoekers “short video addiction” noemen: blijven kijken ondanks negatieve gevolgen in het dagelijks leven.
De studie volgt 234 studenten gedurende drie maanden. Gemiddeld keken zij zo’n 2,5 uur per dag korte video’s. Op twee momenten werden vier factoren gemeten: problematisch kijkgedrag, eenzaamheid, angst en levenstevredenheid. Door die opzet konden de onderzoekers niet alleen verbanden zien, maar ook de volgorde waarin veranderingen optreden.
Die volgorde is cruciaal. Wie aan het begin veel korte video’s keek, voelde zich drie maanden later vaker eenzaam. Volgens de zogeheten displacement-hypothese verdringt schermtijd echte sociale interactie. Minder face-to-face contact betekent minder emotionele steun. Die eenzaamheid bleek vervolgens een opstap naar meer angst: zonder sociaal vangnet voelen mensen zich sneller onzeker en gestrest. En die verhoogde angst ging weer samen met een daling in levensgeluk.
Opvallend is dat de effecten afzonderlijk klein zijn, maar samen een duidelijk patroon vormen. “Het gaat niet alleen om schermtijd, maar om wat je ervoor inruilt,” aldus Kurtça. Met andere woorden: de verloren koffiemomenten, gesprekken en echte connecties.
Bron: PsyPost
Het kabinet laat zich niet ontmoedigen door de verloren stemming over asielwetten in de Eerste Kamer. Minister Bart van den Brink belooft op zeer korte termijn met een nieuwe symboolnoodmaatregelenwet te komen.
"Natuurlijk is het zuur dat de huidige bullshitnoodmaatregelenwet het niet heeft gehaald", zegt de CDA-minister van Asiel en Migratie. "Maar wij zijn ontzettend gemotiveerd om te blijven doen alsof dit het allergrootste probleem van Nederland is en we zullen passende lekkerklinkendenoodmaatregelen nemen."
Van den Brink is ervan overtuigd dat de nieuwe wet het politieke debat de komende jaren zal blijven domineren. "Wij zullen extreemrechts slijmend en kruipend tegemoetkomen, tot ze ons op het laatste moment toch naaien. Daar mag u mij op afrekenen."
Om de een of andere reden roept ook de minister van Defensie van alles over de kwestie.
&
